Search results

This project assesses the effectiveness of a one-day, 5-hour workshop (ESSI training, hereafter) designed for joint instruction by school staff and police to all school staff. The goal was to promote positive outcomes and reduce police involvement in interactions between staff and students exhibiting inappropriate behavior through increased staff awareness of youth behavior, the functions of the juvenile justice system, and disproportionate minority contact (DMC) in disciplinary action.

1,024 school staff participated in 51 ESSI training sessions throughought the 2015/16 academic year, which also serves as the training year in the longitudinal data. Schools which did not participate in the training served as controls for the participating school. Data were drawn from a panel of students enrolled in either a training or control school, with ten schools in each group. Data on this panel of students was collected for a five-year period, from the 2013/14 through the 2017/18 academic years.

School-level data serves as the unit of analysis, as the study's main goal was to test the effects of training on school-wide outcomes. The estimated coefficient indicates small attendance reductions during the post-training phase for the training group. This indicates that most of the differences between the training and control group were statistically insignificant and that there was no pattern of statistically significant positive effects across the training schools. The second set of analyses, performed on student-level data, indicates that male and minority students are more likely to be involved in disciplinary incidents and to receive suspensions or expulsions as a consequence of their behaviors than White and female students.

From 2012 through 2016, MDRC, a non-profit research organization, conducted an evaluation of the scale-up effort of Success for All PowerTeaching in middle-school math. PowerTeaching, a structured cooperative learning program, was designed to do just that. The study was funded by an Investing in Innovation (i3) fund from the U.S. Department of Education. The expansion of PowerTeaching through an i3 grant offers the education field a unique opportunity to learn what it takes to help teachers create cooperative learning environments in their classrooms.

The Success for All PowerTeaching scale-up evaluation examines the PowertTeaching implementation and how it impacts five school districts over a two-year period (the 2014-2015 school year through the 2015-2016 school year). It also considers the scale-up process itself - the methods employed and the extent to which the Success for All Foundation (SFAF), the organization that developed and provides technical assistance to schools operating the program, achieved its scale-up goals.

The ten data files included in this study contain a range of variable information gathered from student-level test scores, teacher and school principal surveys, school achievement snapshots, teacher logs, and scale-up initiative evaluations. Key variables include district IDs, teacher and principal IDs, baseline and outcome standardized test scores, structural and instructional processes, and records of teacher logs. Demographic variables for students include information on race, gender, special education, free/reduced lunch eligibility, ELL status, and age.

The Fast Response Survey System (FRSS) was established in 1975 by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), United States Department of Education. FRSS is designed to collect issue-oriented data within a relatively short time frame. FRSS collects data from state education agencies, local education agencies, public and private elementary and secondary schools, public school teachers, and public libraries. To ensure minimal burden on respondents, the surveys are generally limited to three pages of questions, with a response burden of about 30 minutes per respondent. Sample sizes are relatively small (usually about 1,000 to 1,500 respondents per survey) so that data collection can be completed quickly. Data are weighted to produce national estimates of the sampled education sector. The sample size is large enough to permit limited breakouts by classification variables. However, as the number of categories within the classification variables increases, the sample size within categories decreases, which results in larger sampling errors for the breakouts by classification variables.

The Elementary School Arts Education Survey, Fall 2009 data provide national estimates on student access to arts education and resources available for such instruction in public elementary schools during fall 2009. This is one of a set of seven surveys that collected data on arts education during the 2009-10 school year. In addition to this survey, the set includes a survey of secondary school principals, three elementary teacher-level surveys, and two secondary teacher-level surveys. A stratified sample design was used to select principals for this survey. Data collection was conducted September 2009 through June 2010, and 988 eligible principals completed the survey by web, mail, fax, or telephone.

The elementary school survey collected data on the availability and characteristics of music, visual arts, dance, and drama/theatre instruction; the type of space used for arts instruction; the availability of curriculum guides for arts teachers to follow; the availability of curriculum-based arts education activities outside of regular school hours; and whether those teaching the subject are arts specialists. Principals also reported on school or district provision of teacher professional development in the arts; arts education programs, activities, and events; and school-community partnerships. Principals were also asked to provide administrative information such as school instructional level, school enrollment size, community type, and percent of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch.

The Fast Response Survey System (FRSS) was established in 1975 by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), United States Department of Education. FRSS is designed to collect issue-oriented data within a relatively short time frame. FRSS collects data from state education agencies, local education agencies, public and private elementary and secondary schools, public school teachers, and public libraries. To ensure minimal burden on respondents, the surveys are generally limited to three pages of questions, with a response burden of about 30 minutes per respondent. Sample sizes are relatively small (usually about 1,000 to 1,500 respondents per survey) so that data collection can be completed quickly. Data are weighted to produce national estimates of the sampled education sector. The sample size is large enough to permit limited breakouts by classification variables. However, as the number of categories within the classification variables increases, the sample size within categories decreases, which results in larger sampling errors for the breakouts by classification variables.

The Secondary School Arts Education Survey, Fall 2009 data provide national estimates on student access to arts education and the resources available for such instruction in public secondary schools during fall 2009. This is one of a set of seven surveys that collected data on arts education during the 2009-10 school year. In addition to this survey, the set includes a survey of elementary school principals, three elementary teacher-level surveys, and two secondary teacher-level surveys. A stratified sample design was used to select principals for this survey. Data collection was conducted September 2009 through June 2010, and 1,014 eligible principals completed the survey by web, mail, fax, or telephone.

The secondary school survey collected data on the availability of music, visual arts, dance, and drama/theatre instruction; enrollment in these courses, the type of space used for arts instruction, the availability of curriculum guides for arts teachers to follow, and the number of arts teachers who are specialists in the subject. Principals reported on graduation requirements for coursework in the arts; school or district provision of teacher professional development in the arts; and arts education programs, activities, and events. Principals also reported on community partnerships and support from outside sources for arts education. Furthermore, principals were also asked to provide administrative information such as school instructional level, school enrollment size, community type, and percent of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch.

The Impacts and Implementation of the i3-Funded Scale-Up of Success for All study examined the implementation and impacts of a whole-school reform model, Success for All (SFA), which seeks to increase reading proficiency among students in elementary schools serving low-income children, as this model was scaled up under an Investing in Innovation (i3) grant from the United States Department of Education. The impact evaluation used a cluster random assignment design in which 37 schools in five school districts were selected at random either to implement SFA (the program group schools) or to put in place their business-as-usual reading program (the control group schools). This collection contains Parts 1 to 7 for public use; and Part 8 for restricted use only.

In Part 1: Primary Student Sample data, children who began kindergarten in sampled schools and remained in them through second grade were assessed using standardized assessments of phonics skills, reading fluency, and comprehension. In Part 2: Auxiliary Sample, additional analyses examined third-year impacts on reading skills for all second graders, whether or not they remained continuously enrolled in the study schools, and for students in grades 3 through 5. The analysis also examined impacts for subgroups defined by ethnicity, early literacy skills measured upon entry into kindergarten, and other variables.

Part 3: School Achievement Snapshot Data contain implementation data for analysis using an instrument created by SFA's developers that measures the extent to which program elements were put in place at each program group at the end of each year. This instrument was utilized to assess fidelity to the program model. The implementation analysis was also informed by principal (Part 5: Principal Survey) and teacher surveys (Part 4: Teacher Survey) in all schools, as well by logs (Part 6: Teacher Log) that asked teachers to document their instructional practices in early reading classes. These data, collected in all three study years, make it possible to measure implementation over the study period and to compare program group schools and control group schools on a variety of dimensions.

Part 7: Scale-Up Sample Data provided data on the schools that adopted SFA (and those which were approached, but did not adopt), and schools that adopted before the Investing in Innovations grant. Part 8 is the restricted version of Part 7, which retains geographic location variables.

The Longitudinal Study of American Youth (LSAY) is a project that was funded by the National Science Foundation in 1985 and was designed to examine the development of: (1) student attitudes toward and achievement in science, (2) student attitudes toward and achievement in mathematics, and (3) student interest in and plans for a career in science, mathematics, or engineering, during middle school, high school, and the first four years post-high school. The relative influence parents, home, teachers, school, peers, media, and selected informal learning experiences had on these developmental patterns was considered as well.

The older LSAY cohort, Cohort One, consisted of a national sample of 2,829 tenth-grade students in public high schools throughout the United States. These students were followed for an initial period of seven years, ending four years after high school in 1994. Cohort Two, consisted of a national sample of 3,116 seventh-grade students in public schools that served as feeder schools to the same high schools in which the older cohort was enrolled. These students were followed for an initial period of seven years, concluding with a telephone interview approximately one year after the end of high school in 1994.

Beginning in the fall of 1987, the LSAY collected a wide array of information including: (1) a science achievement test and a mathematics achievement test each fall, (2) an attitudinal and experience questionnaire at the beginning and end of each school year, (3) reports about education and experience from all science and math teachers in each school, (4) reports on classroom practice by each science and math teacher serving a LSAY student, (5) an annual 25-minute telephone interview with one parent of each student, and (6) extensive school-level information from the principal of each study school.

In 2006, the NSF funded a proposal to re-contact the original LSAY students (then in their mid-30's) to resume data collection to determine their educational and occupational outcomes. Through an extensive tracking activity which involved: (1) online tracking, (2) newsletter mailing, (3) calls to parents and other relatives, (4) use of alternative online search methods, and (5) questionnaire mailing, more than 95 percent of the original sample of 5,945 LSAY students were located or accounted for. In addition to re-contacting the students, the proposal defined a new eligible sample of approximately 5,000 students and these young adults were asked to complete a survey in 2007. A second survey was conducted in the fall of 2008 that sought to gather updated information about occupational and education outcomes and to measure the civic scientific literacy of these young adults, in which to date more than 3,200 participants have responded. A third survey was conducted in the fall of 2009 that sought to gather updated information about occupational and education outcomes and to measure the participants' use of selected informal science education resources, in which to date more than 3,200 participants have responded. A fourth survey was conducted in the fall of 2010 that sought to gather updated information about occupational and education outcomes, as well as provided questions about the participants' interactions with their children, in which to date more than 3,200 participants have responded. Finally, a fifth survey was conducted in the fall of 2011 that sought to gather updated information about education outcomes and included an expanded occupation battery for all participants, as well as an expanded spousal information battery for all participants. The 2011 questionnaire also included items about the 2011 Fukushima incident in Japan along with attitudinal items about nuclear power and global climate change. To date approximately 3,200 participants responded to the 2011 survey.

There were no surveys conducted in 2012 or 2013. Beginning in 2014 the LSAY was funded by the National Institute on Aging for five years. This data release adds the 2017 data to the previous data release that included data through 2016.

The public release data files include information collected from the national probability sample students, their parents, and the science and mathematics teachers in the students' schools. The data covers the initial seven years, beginning in the fall of 1987, as well as the data collected in the 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017 questionnaires.

Part 1: LSAY Merged Cohort (Base File) contains student and parent data from both cohorts of the LSAY from 1987-1994 and student follow-up data from 2007-2011 and 2014-2017. Additionally, Parts 2 - 5 contain information gathered from two teacher background questionnaires and two principal questionnaires from 1987-1994.

This deposit contains the replication data and materials associated with the article “How Do Schools React? Making Sense of Organizational Responses to Accountability Pressure.” The study examines how schools in Chile respond to performance-based accountability (PBA) in a highly marketized education system. The quantitative component draws on survey data from teachers (n = 1,130) and school leaders (n = 200) in 79 urban schools located in the metropolitan areas of Santiago, Valparaíso, and Concepción. The qualitative component includes semi-structured interviews with school leaders (n = 23) and teachers (n = 28) from 15 urban schools in Santiago’s Metropolitan Region, complemented by documentary analysis. The materials document school responses to accountability pressure, including teaching to the test, curricular alignment, resource redistribution, data use, and actors’ beliefs about the fairness, validity, and pressure associated with standardized testing and accountability policies. The deposit is intended to support transparency, verification, and reuse of the study’s analytic procedures and findings.

The Taiwan Education Panel Survey (TEPS) is a national longitudinal project initiated by Academia Sinica and jointly funded by Ministry of Education, the National Science Council, and Academia Sinica. The objective of TEPS is to stimulate more basic research in the fields of education, sociology, economics, and psychology by employing large scale panel data on representative samples of students, and their parents, teachers, and school administrators. In a nutshell, TEPS has five distinguishing features: (1) Theory driven: The focus is on the skills, behavioral, values, and psychological consequences of schooling institutions and family environments of students. Factors that are found in the literature to affect students' learning outcomes are all included. Specifically speaking, an AOE model of learning outcomes, representing learning capabilities (Ability), learning opportunities (Opportunity), and the amount of effort made by the students (Effort), serves as a guiding framework for questionnaire development. Ability and effort are more on students themselves while opportunities covers family, teachers, and school environment, peers, and so forth.

(2) Student centered and multidimensional and multi-levels: Central to the project were questionnaire surveys of students. The data collection extends to cover the most influential actors in their learning environment: parents, teachers, and schools. It covered nested multiple levels of data - individual students, classes, and schools, etc.

(3) Panel surveys covering multiple programs and multiple cohorts: Students in junior high (G7 to G9), senior high (G10 to G12), vocational (G10 to G12), and junior college (G10 to G14) programs were administered for data collection. All students were followed at least twice. A portion of them were followed four times at G7, G9, G11, and G12. In light of the ongoing transformation of the Taiwanese educational system in 1990s, the project started with two cohorts of approximately 40,000 students, making it possible to employ a quasi-experimental design in future analysis.

(4) National representative samples of the students: Students under data collection were representative samples of the 1984/85 and 1988/89 birth cohorts. Weighting is provided according to the probabilistic sampling design.

(5) Public goods: Data are made available to the public as soon as the data collection and data cleaning is completed, thereby providing an important resource for both academic and policy research.

This is the data deposit for the AERA Open paper "The Unintended Consequences of Teacher Autonomy and Principal Leadership: The Challenges of Teacher-Parent Communication and Teacher Well-Being in South Korea." Motivated by recent tragedies highlighting teacher stress stemming from parental demands, this study examines the relationships among parent–teacher communication, teacher autonomy, principal leadership, and well-being in South Korea. Analyzing data from the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2022 with school fixed effects, we find that increased hours spent communicating with parents are negatively associated with multiple dimensions of teacher well-being. Furthermore, we uncover a critical “autonomy paradox”: although perceived autonomy generally enhances well-being, high levels of autonomy significantly exacerbate the negative association between communication hours and well-being. We also reveal that strong principal instructional leadership fails to mitigate this paradox and may even intensify the perceived burden. These findings challenge the assumption that autonomy or leadership functions as a protective resource. Instead, within high-pressure, bureaucratic systems, autonomy and leadership may operate as a managerial device and source of personal liability characterized by isolated responsibility rather than professional resources.